Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 15.djvu/22

 8 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

obliged to make a certain "ad hominem" argument for itself in terms of the cans-of-preserves conception of science.

Although the chief reason, on the methodological side, for the existence of sociology, is this absurdity to which schematic classification of the sciences has led, the absurdity had preempted the minds of academic authorities, and there was nothing for the sociologists to do, if they were to get standing ground within academic territory, but to present themselves with cans of stuff in their hands that seemed to fill out the list of preserves neces- sary to complete the scientific assortment. There is nothing very heroic about this procedure, we must admit. It might have been better all around to stand outside the academic walls and to bom- bard the pedantries within till they capitulated. For well or ill, as the price of a place among the traditional sciences, the people who call themselves sociologists have assumed the burden of proving that they have a can of science-stuff of their own, and are thus as much entitled to a place among the academic can- openers as the predecessors who are exploiting more familiar brands of preserves. The most extreme illustrations are Profes- sors Simmel and Tonnies in Germany. They are among the most acute thinkers in the world today, and it is safe to predict that their work will be held in high honor when the present sociologi- cal movement has passed to its final account in the history of science. They are, however, paying a heavy duty of apparent provincialization of their activities, in order to be tolerated among the academically protected interests.^

We are perhaps getting what we deserve in kind, though more than our share in degree, when we are taunted with having only an empty can, or one filled from the cast-offs of other cans. Out calling is first and foremost to show up the absurdity of the can-of-preserves obsession in science; and we are making our election sure just in the degree in which we differentiate our- selves from the can-openers, and promote the perception that real science has the task of reorganizing itself for an entirely differ- ent procedure.

SimmeL
 * In a later number we shall return to this subject in connection with